Trope Decay and Misuse: Jumping Off The Slippery Slope

I think that the title for Jumping Off the Slippery Slope is such a corruption of the meaning of the original phrase that confusion of this trope's meaning is inevitable.

Also this strikes me as a bit too similar to Moral Event Horizon.

edited 9th Jan '12 5:28:59 PM by Ckuckoo

What did the original phrase mean?

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Slippery Slope Fallacy. I probably should have said 'the concept it was based on' rather than phrase.

edited 10th Jan '12 5:45:05 AM by Ckuckoo

But the definition of Jumping Off the Slippery Slope is following the Slippery Slope Fallacy, within the constraints of a 24 minute timeblock.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Not even close. In fact, the definition you offered is exactly why the trope is misused: People think that's what it is.

Jumping Off the Slippery Slope is a subtrope of Debate and Switch. Heroes meet Character X, who has similar goals to them, but shadier methods (Maybe he's a vigilante who kills criminals rather than just jail them so they can escape). The author, rather than have the heroes consider if their methods or X's are better, have X do something completely evil (say kill 10 civilians to get to one criminal) so they can just write off his method.

That's where the trope comes from: X didn't slide down the slippery slope, he jumped it. Going straight to the far extreme.

I do agree a rename would help, alot.

Quit looking at the heroes. This does not have to be a Dark Counterpart trope, and the actual definition doesn't say so.

Instead of outlining that doing A (which is maybe bad) leads to B, leads to C, leads to D, which is very bad.... The trope is doing A is bad, because then you'll do D, which is very bad.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Slippery Slope: A—> B—> C —> D

This trope: A —> D.

There's no slope.

Also, for the record, Ghilz's summary seems directly lifted from the trope description to me, i.e. very accurate. Maybe the description should be a bit clearer to minimise confusion.

edited 10th Jan '12 6:34:48 PM by Ckuckoo

Not quite.

Slippery Slope: A —> B —> C —> D.

Slippery Slope Fallacy: A == D

This trope: We don't need to decide if A is bad, because they're doing D now.

The trope can come into play with the main hero doing action A, then becoming an Evil Overlord. The hero goes back and doesn't do A, and everything is fine now. Thus, the lesson is "don't do action A". This trope is used because you can't fit the progression, the A plot and main character B plot, argument scenes, comedy scenes, and the scene delivering the Aesop at the end all within 24 minutes. So they cut out the progression and go straight from A to D, just as the fallacy claims.

edited 10th Jan '12 7:10:39 PM by crazysamaritan

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Good explanation. As for the mix-up between this and a Moral Event Horizon:

Moral Event Horizon: A character does something so terrible they'll be considered completely irredeemable from now on (both in universe and by the audience). Jumping Off the Slippery Slope: One side of a morally grey issue conveniently commits an unambiguously evil act so the author doesn't have to discuss the matter further.

Personally, I'd support a rename (I remember being really confused by the trope name when I first came across it). Should we set up a single proposition crowner?

edited 21st Jan '12 12:04:04 PM by Myra

An important point to note (as mentioned ) is that a "slippery slope" argument isn't necessarily fallacious; just when it skips the middle and says A will certainly lead to D.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Wow. I read this whole thread and didn't really get what the trope was about until I read your post.

Slowly Slipping Into Evil has been launched. Should do a wick and example check to move the relevant tropes over there.

Really? Do you think the description could use a re-write, then?

edited 21st Jan '12 6:49:39 PM by crazysamaritan

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Should Jumping Off the Slippery Slope be renamed then?

I think the better idea would be to comb the wicks and correct as necessary, then come back later and see if misuse persists.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

This is a serious mess. The newly launched trope should cover what most of the misuse here is supposed to be, but this page needs serious cleanup and possibly, a rename.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

I think the name is fine, but the description is confusing. Threw up a revised version at Sandbox.Jumping Off The Slippery Slope.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

The sandbox is much better.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Agreed.

We now have major misuse to clean up.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

Actually I think the name can't stay, because using the phrase Slippery Slope suggests something other than what's intended.

The core of the problem being presented in the trope is not a slippery slope so much as it is ignoring the issue at hand a la Debate and Switch. Character X who commits a clearly evil action when he was only presented as having a grey morality before that doesn't mean that he went through a poorly-conceived change within the course of the story (as Slippery Slope would suggest*

); it is revealing that this Gray morality is actually Black Morality in disguise: there was no such thing as Gray morality all along!

The message it subsequently sends is one that looks like the Slippery Slope Fallacy, but is not; it is a problem that's not contested because the gray is simply removed from the equation, despite having been brought to the audience's attention. The audience may be aware that the gray option exists, but the show's universe seems to preclude it.

edited 24th Feb '12 1:02:58 PM by RickGriffin

I think the bit in your hottip is the important part, though. The logic isn't "they did something gray, then did something black, so the gray thing must actually be a black thing!" It's "they did something gray, then they did something black, so gray must inevitably lead to black, so we can't do anything gray". It's a highly condensed version of the slippery slope argument (instead of ambiguous -> might be bad -> probably bad -> definitely bad -> unspeakably evil, it goes ambiguous -> unspeakably evil), thus "jumping off" instead of "sliding down".

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Bump. Clocking thread.

The only question left seems to be whether it needs a rename or not. Should we start a crowner?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I think so. At the very least, it should be named something like Jumping Off The Ethical Slippery Slope. The full form of the trope would be something like "a case of Writer on Board who creates a Well-Intentioned Extremist to demonstrate a writer-defined slippery slope."

Hm, I see a real problem with having Slippery Slope Fallacy but no slippery slope argument; it's not actually a formal fallacy at all. It can lead to informal fallacies by excluding the middle and making other unwarranted assumptions, but there are cases were a slope does, indeed, seem plausibly slippery.

edited 25th Mar '12 4:28:28 AM by pawsplay

I think we need to do something before the clock runs out, or we'll just be ignoring massive misuse.

Crowner sounds good.

Single-prop crowner here.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.